From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262527AbVDGQ7w (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:59:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262528AbVDGQ7w (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:59:52 -0400 Received: from smtp.istop.com ([66.11.167.126]:21213 "EHLO smtp.istop.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262527AbVDGQ7i (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:59:38 -0400 From: Daniel Phillips To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Kernel SCM saga.. Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:00:51 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 Cc: Paul Mackerras , Kernel Mailing List References: <16980.55403.190197.751840@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504071300.51907.phillips@istop.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:10, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Do you have it automated to the point where processing emailed patches > > involves little more overhead than doing a bk pull? > > It's more overhead, but not a lot. Especially nice numbered sequences like > Andrew sends (where I don't have to manually try to get the dependencies > right by trying to figure them out and hope I'm right, but instead just > sort by Subject: line)... Hi Linus, In that case, a nice refinement is to put the sequence number at the end of the subject line so patch sequences don't interleave: Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (1 of 3) Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (2 of 3) Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (3 of 3) Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 1 of 3) Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 2 of 3) ... Regards, Daniel